Grbic, Douglas

Purpose Mission statements (MSs) express an organization’s purpose and reflect the broader social environment in which they function. The authors analyze MS text to explore how medical schools can be relationally viewed and how particular thematic narratives within MSs can be deployed to associate schools in hithertofore unexplored ways. Method The authors analyzed the MSs (as of 1/1/2017) of 144 U.S. Liaison Committee on Medical Education–accredited schools. Using schools as their unit of analysis, they coded MSs using 44 themes. They employed content analysis to identify themes within MSs, factor analysis to identify core thematic dimensions embedded in MSs, and network analysis to examine relationships among schools based on these thematic dimensions. The authors used four standard school characteristics to examine the validity of their results. Results Content analysis revealed 20 core themes. Factor analysis identified four thematic dimensions: Primary Care/Diversity; Future Learning–External; Traditional; and Learning Environment–Internal. Based on the 20 core themes and using the MSs of 125 schools with nonextreme MS code counts, the authors found that schools form a complete network, and that schools form distinctive network-based clusters based on the identified factors. The four thematic dimensions were significantly differentiated across the four standard school characteristics. Conclusions The authors found distinctive patterns of MS linkages among schools along with thematic linkages within MS themes, supporting the contentions that medical schools can be both differentiated and connected based on their MSs and that understanding MS content must move beyond simple frequency counts of MS attributes.

This article explores the assessment of professionalism within a cohort of medical students during a sequential 13‐week medical school histology and anatomy course. Across seven data points, students were asked to identify a professionalism role model from amongst their peers and to score Likert‐structured rationales for their decision. Based on density scores, an initial social network analysis identified six peer‐nomination “stars.” However, analysis of these stars revealed considerable variability and random‐like “noise” in both the nomination and explanation data sets. Subsequent analyses of both data sets explored the possibility of underlying patterns in this noise using tests of reliability, principal components factor analysis, and fixed‐effects regression analysis. These explorations revealed the presence of two dimensions (professional vs. supportive) in how students sought to explain their nomination decisions. Although data variability remained quite high, significantly less variability was present in the professional than in the supportive dimension, suggesting that academic helpfulness rationales are both empirically distinct and more mutable than rationales grounded in professionalism‐related factors. In addition, data showed that the greater the stability in one's choice of a professionalism role model nomination over the T1–T7 data periods, the more stable one's reasons for that nomination—both for professionalism and supportive dimensions. Results indicate that while peer assessment of professionalism by first‐year medical students may not be very reliable, students can differentiate between more personal and professional factors, even at this early stage in their professional development. Formal instruction within the pre‐clinical curriculum should recognize and address this distinction. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

Purpose Minimal attention has been paid to what factors may predict peer nomination or how peer nominations might exhibit a clustering effect. Focusing on the homophily principle that “birds of a feather flock together,” and using a social network analysis approach, the authors investigated how certain student- and/or school-based factors might predict the likelihood of peer nomination, and the clusters, if any, that occur among those nominations. Method In 2013, the Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education included a special instrument to evaluate peer nominations. A total of 211 (81%) of 260 graduating medical students from the Sidney Kimmel Medical College responded to the peer nomination question. Data were analyzed using a relational contingency table and an ANOVA density model. Results Although peer nominations did not cluster around gender, age, or class rank, those students within an accelerated program, as well as those entering certain specialties, were more likely to nominate each other. The authors suggest that clerkships in certain specialties, as well as the accelerated program, may provide structured opportunities for students to connect and integrate, and that these opportunities may have an impact on peer nomination. The findings suggest that social network analysis is a useful approach to examine various aspects of peer nomination processes. Conclusions The authors discuss implications regarding harnessing social cohesion within clinical clerkships, the possible development of siloed departmental identity and in-group favoritism, and future research possibilities.